104. The Faculty Handbook section concerning Grievances also contains provisions relevant to the Petitioner's argument that KSU should pay her back pay through the date of the Board of Regent's final order.12 Those provisions, which are discussed in the Conclusions of Law, state as follows:
GRIEVANCES
・・・・・・
Types of Grievances
Grievances which could be lodged by a faculty member against other parties (faculty, staff, administrators, and/or students) include, but are not limited to, inequities in assigned duties, violations of academic freedom (see section 2.9.1), or any of the complaints listed below which are suffered by a faculty member. Generally, routine decisions and/or actions of Deans, Directors, Chairpersons, and other administrators which are in accord with published University policy are not grievable offenses. However, if these decisions and/or actions are discriminatory or unfair in nature, they are grievable offenses. This particularly includes decisions and/or actions that cause professional harm or personal hardship to a faculty member.
Grievances which may be filed against a faculty member include deviations from expected professional behavior (as outlined in the section on Faculty Responsibilities in the Faculty Handbook and/or below) and/or charges regarding the violations of law. Generally, routine decisions and/or actions of faculty members that are in accord with published University policy are not grievable offenses.
Examples of grievances involving unacceptable professional behaviors which could be lodged against a faculty member by other parties (faculty, staff, administrators, and/or students) include, but are not limited to, plagiarism;
12 See http://kysu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Faculty-Handbook-Revised-June-2011.pdf. The parties did not enter a copy of the grievance procedure into the record at the hearing. Pursuant to KRS 13B.090(5), the Hearing Officer takes official notice of these provisions from the Kentucky State University Faculty Handbook, "Latest Revision: February 9, 2012." This version is not in dispute as reflected by the fact that HE 2, which was drawn from the same version, was offered by KSU and entered into evidence without objection from the Petitioner.
33